Tag Archives: leadership

If everyone is insecure, what can we do about it?

Posted on by
3

This post continues from my previous post, The root of insecurity.

What’s the solution to the prevalence of leaders operating out of insecurity? Spotting it in the leader of a country or company is no better than being an armchair warrior; we can’t do anything about it, and may not be in a position to raise our concerns in a constructive manner. So in this post, we’ll focus on what we have control over. We’ll look first at our own leadership and then discuss how to help develop those we supervise or influence.

Leading ourselves

Chip Ingram says the solution to insecurity is unmasking. In other words, being honest and bringing doubts, anxieties and weaknesses into the light. The starting point is to be honest with ourselves about what’s driving our behavior or reactions. Leading oneself is the first job of leadership, so reflect on the following questions: 

  • Which of the behaviors in my last post are you most tempted toward?
  • The last time you exhibited one of those symptoms, why do you think you responded the way you did?
  • When is the last time you overreacted to something? What triggered that response? 

To lead yourself, it’s important to understand your weaknesses, your tendencies toward sin and temptation, and the dark sides of your strengths.* 

Second, you need to be honest with God. As much as we might fault Moses for his excuses and finally begging God to send someone else, that honesty was a great starting point. Not for God, who already knows it. If he’s called us to something, it’s with full knowledge of the complete package of the one he has called. 

Acknowledgement of our insecurities keeps us in a strong dependent posture. When Moses says it out loud, it’s an important baseline in his relationship with God. Realizing he knows the worst about us invites new levels of unpretentious intimacy. It then leads to a greater appreciation of our position as children of God, loved and accepted without having to earn that status. 

My mentor Sunder Krishnan once said in teaching about Isaiah 24,

To be loved by someone who doesn’t know our dark side isn’t much consolation. “If only they knew what I am really like” plagues us. Conversely, to be known for who we really are, and hence not loved, confirms our worst fears about ourselves, that we are intrinsically unlovable. BUT, to be truly known for who we are and still to be loved is an unbelievably valuable gift. It is this gift that God wants to give us when He, through Isaiah, calls us to in-depth exploration of our sin in all of its ugliness so we can hate it as we should and confess it.

That understanding of being “beloved” is a game changer in how vulnerable we can be with others. I’m still learning. Internalizing that truth was one of my focuses over the past year.

Leading others

Now you need to model vulnerability based on the work you’ve done in private. As Patrick Lencioni says in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, trust within a team is established through uncomfortable honesty, and a team cannot achieve vulnerability-based trust unless the leader goes first. Others will feel safe to be vulnerable if the leader is willing to risk losing face. So, rather than covering up, join Chip Ingram in refusing to play the game. Let your team know when you’re feeling insecure, or let them see the real you when you would normally put on a mask.

This is the primary focus of one of my favorite leadership books, Leading With a Limp. Dan Allender says,

Why do most leaders live in fear that they will one day be discovered and known, exposed and humiliated? They know they’re a mess, but they hope against hope that no one else will notice (56)…. The more honest I name what is true about myself, the less I need to hide and defend and posture and pretend (152).

There are a number of benefits, including these:

  1. Disrupting the downward spiral of hiding. “This is the strange paradox of leading: to the degree you attempt to hide or dissemble your weaknesses, the more you will need to control those you lead, the more insecure you will become, and the more rigidity you will impose” (3).
  2. Preaching grace through leadership. When leaders make their weakness clear, “it is through their weakness that grace comes to be magnified. Weakness is the big idea of the gospel” (54).
  3. Challenging others to honesty. “Why admit your failures publicly? First, doing so invites others—by the Spirit’s prompting—to look more honestly at their own need for forgiveness, freedom, and courage” (p173).

However, Allender warns that vulnerability is a big risk for a leader. “To admit we are foolish, weak, and in need of repentance gives the vindictive and self-righteous camp plenty of ammunition to turn against us and to turn others against our leadership” (160). It turns the common model of leadership on its head.

Here is God’s leadership model: he chooses fools to live foolishly in order to reveal the economy of heaven, which reverses and inverts the wisdom of this world. He calls us to brokenness, not performance; to relationships, not commotion; to grace, not success. It is no wonder that this kind of leadership is neither spoken of nor admired in our business schools or even our seminaries (p55).

So, count the cost, tread carefully, and proceed with courage! 

Second, it’s important to recognize the tendencies, biases and motivations of those you lead—what has shaped them, where they hope to grow and how well they’re dealing with others. It will help you interpret reactions that are out of character. Recognizing the different masking techniques of members of your team will enable you to support them well and develop their character.

When you see a direct report overreacting because of an insecurity, you can’t afford to leave it alone if it affects their work. Ignoring or overlooking it could lead to a bigger problem in the future. Pray for insight and gently ask if they know why they reacted that way. A foundation of care and vulnerability-based trust should allow them to open up. 

Wrapping up

Take a look at Hebrews 11, the so-called “Hall of Faith.” It’s noteworthy to see how many of these insecure leaders are given pedestals for their faith: Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Barak, Jephthah and the prophets. Their insecurities didn’t define them, and neither did their masks. God was able to use them just as they were to accomplish great things and to lead others well.

I admit I haven’t perfectly followed this advice, or at least to the extremes Allender promotes. However, to the degree that I’ve implemented this way of leading, I’ve seen remarkable results. Almost every time I’ve admitted weakness or sought forgiveness, I’ve seen trust strengthened and received grace I didn’t deserve while also releasing some of the burden of leadership. How about you? I’d love to hear about your attempts to put these ideas into practice.

* See The Dark Side of Your Strengths, based on the book, Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership

Related blog posts:

The root of insecurity

Posted on by
3

How much damage is caused by insecure leaders?

So many behaviors in leaders can be traced back to a basic insecurity and the leader’s attempts to compensate for it. As I mentioned in my last post, Chip Ingram says there are weak and strong responses—an idea he credits to an out-of-print book by a Swiss Christian psychologist, Paul Tournier: The Strong and the Weak.

I’m not a psychologist, but let me try to use Tournier’s and Ingram’s thoughts to trace a few of the manifestations back to this core weakness. Rather than point at current-day figures, I’m going to draw on Scriptural examples and let you apply them to what you see in the world around you, whether it’s celebrities, political leaders or supervisors in your organization. Or in yourself.

Strong responses

Some cloak themselves by “powering up”:

  • Putting enormous effort into their appearance
  • Having an excessive need to count—how big their church is, how many people report to them, or how fast they’re growing
  • Gathering status symbols like cars, electronics or a network
  • Flashing wealth in various ways, including name dropping
  • Taking credit and seeking acclaim
  • Bragging and demonstrating arrogance
  • Aggression and intimidation through anger, threats, blaming and creating power imbalances
  • Other forms of attempts to control, such as manipulation and passive aggressiveness

A few Biblical examples stand out for me.

  1. Ahab is an abusive king featured in 1 Kings 17-22 who, along with his wife Jezebel, kills the Lord’s prophets and leads the nation into sin. But there’s one moment when Ahab opens up about his deep insecurity. When Naboth stands up to him and doesn’t let him push him aside, the king sulks and stops eating (1 Ki 21:4-6). Only Jezebel sees his vulnerable state and steps in with a brutal display of authority that keeps the mask intact for those under their thumb.
  2. In Isaiah 22:15-23, God calls out Shebna, King Hezekiah’s palace administrator, for his flashy chariot and for the tomb he’s building for himself. Was he insecure? He was an outsider, a foreigner appointed to a high position of leadership, and one possible meaning of his name is “uncertain” (Biblegateway Encyclopedia of the Bible). It seems likely that he tried to cover his imposter syndrome by projecting his status and through a clumsy attempt to leave a legacy.
  3. When we first learn of King Saul, he downplays his status (1 Samuel 9:19-10:1) and then hides in the baggage to avoid appointment as king (1 Sam 10:20-24). His insecurity presents as humility, but we soon discover a leader who has a weakness for people pleasing (1 Sam 15:24-30) and feels threatened when another is celebrated (1 Sam 18:7-9). His jealousy leads him to a vindictive hunt to kill David, his protege, and slaughters priests when they help him. 
  4. Jacob always comes in second place. He is a twin who fights unsuccessfully with his brother to get out of the womb first and then misses out on the favor of his father (Gen 25:22-28). His desire for approval leads to an over-competitive disposition and a lifelong tendency toward manipulation and deceit. He tricks his favored brother out of his firstborn birthright (Gen 25:29-34) and blessing (Gen 27), he bests his uncle in a battle of deceit (Gen 29-31), and he even wrestles with God (Gen 32:22-32). While his family members are all impacted by his actions, the worst thing is that he sets the stage for an entire nation (Gen 25:23, Gen 32:28, Gen 37, Hosea 12) who will wrestle with God.
  5. In the New Testament, King Herod demonstrates a similar pattern of jealous abuse of power as he tries to kill the newborn Messiah (Matthew 2:13-16). And Pontius Pilate demonstrates indecisiveness and fear of the people (Mark 15:1-15) that leads him to give in to crucifying the Messiah.

With those examples in mind, can you spot similar tendencies in some current-day leaders?

Weak responses

There is another, opposite way of cloaking insecurity, with so-called “weak responses”:

  • Presenting extreme humility, over-apologizing or perhaps demonstrating a victim mentality to gain sympathy
  • Withdrawing and pursuing isolation to avoid potential rejection, perhaps avoiding people or eye contact
  • Protective or superficial responses, to dodge introspection or disclosure
  • Defensiveness or avoiding feedback mechanisms
  • Deflection of any hint of depth through humor or sarcasm, or dismissing compliments
  • People-pleasing in a desire for validation or to avoid upsetting others. In leadership, this can come out in deferral of decisions or difficult conversations.

While there are plenty of examples in Scripture, this blog is focusing on those in leadership. Here are some examples from the Bible:

  1. Twice Abraham tells self-protective half truths to save himself, putting his wife Sarai in a risky position (Gen 12:10-20, 20:1-18). While he could rationalize his actions, because he had married his half sister, his actions undermine his credibility, cause his wife harm and bring plagues against innocent rulers of other nations.
  2. After Moses fails in his first attempt at leadership, he isolates himself in the wilderness—for 40 years!—leading sheep instead of people (Ex 2:11-15,3:1). When God calls him to a place of prominent leadership, he fights and fights that calling with multiple arguments, self-deprecating beliefs and even begging (Ex 3:11-4:13).
  3. Moses’ brother Aaron caves in to the demands of the people when his brother disappears for 40 days on Mount Sinai (Ex 32). He lets the people break loose, creates a golden idol that leads them to sin and abdicates responsibility when confronted with his role (Ex 32:21-25). His actions lead to a brutal punishment against the people he had been responsible for.
  4. Jephthah was a man forced into exile by his family because of his illegitimate birth until they needed a warrior to lead them as judge (Judges 11:1-11). His guarded response and negotiations for guarantees are understandable in light of his background, but his leadership is derailed by his rash vow even after the Spirit of the Lord came upon him (11:29-35). It reads like a clumsy attempt to negotiate with or even manipulate God. His six years as a judge are marked by internal wars.
  5. I could also mention Jeremiah, who told God all the reasons he couldn’t use him (Jeremiah 1:4-10), and Barak, who wouldn’t lead the people without help from courageous women (Judges 4:6-10).

Tournier says the goal of either strong or weak responses is to maintain distance or create a false image so no one will know who I really am. I need to keep people away because, “If you ever knew who I was, you wouldn’t like me.”

If we were all truly honest, how many of you readers and those you lead have this basic core belief? We all need to deal with the root of insecurity before it causes deep hurt.

This post is getting a bit long, so I’m going to split it. In my next post I’ll approach the question, if everyone is insecure, what can we do about it?

Related blog posts:

Inadequate, insecure and in charge

Posted on by
4

For all my readers who are aspiring to high levels of leadership, I want to pull back the curtain and expose one of the biggest secrets about leaders. I share this, not to deflate high potential leaders, but to hopefully make the path more approachable.

In the eleven years I served as president of an organization, I regularly kept in mind an acronym I picked up over the years from a few different leaders. WIDIRIC stands for Woefully Inadequate, Desperately Insecure and Ridiculously in Charge. 

Woefully Inadequate

These thoughts come from Scottish pastor Alistair Begg, who gave a presentation at the Christian Leadership Alliance conference more than fifteen years ago. While I couldn’t find that presentation, I found another similar one on YouTube: Inadequacy: The Surprising Secret to Being Useful to God. 

None of us are equal to the task of leadership. Begg points out the amazing number of times the apostle Paul picks up this theme throughout his two letters to the Corinthian church. It’s clear Paul believed the secret to usefulness in ministry cannot be traced to any natural competence. It is only in leaning into our weakness and inadequacy that we find God’s strength (2 Cor 12:9-10), receive the Lord’s commendation (2 Cor 10:12,17-18), and see God produce results we couldn’t achieve on our own (1 Cor 3:6-8).

In those eleven years, I was constantly reminded of the irony that God chose a monolingual graphic designer to run a Bible translation organization. I have three letters after my name, but they aren’t much help in this organization: BFA. In half the situations I faced as president, I didn’t really know what to do. I constantly wondered whether I made the right choice, wore the right clothes, said the right things. 

And yet, I had a strong conviction that God had called me to, led me to and prepared me for this role. Realizing that I wasn’t sufficient in myself (2 Cor 3:4-6), I leaned into my collaborative style, surrounding myself with people who were smarter and more specialized than I was and fashioning a leadership team approach. I tried to approach leadership with a learning posture and dependence on God. Sure, he did use many of my strengths, but I was constantly aware that it was his power working through me that was my real hope of effectiveness. 

Desperately Insecure

This idea comes from American pastor and teacher Chip Ingram. You can read or listen to more of his thoughts at Everyone is Desperately Insecure.

Everyone is insecure, but some are better at masking it than others. Ingram says insecurity manifests in many different ways. Some withdraw and create distance from others, while some power up, boasting and intimidating others. All are ways to cover up or pull away out of fear of being unloveable or unworthy. “Strong responses” are probably more obvious in leadership positions, because people mistake bragging, testosterone and intimidation for leadership. But “weak responses,” such as defensiveness, deflection and people pleasing, are just as common.

Ingram tells the story of how, shortly after he launched his radio ministry, he was invited to attend an event sponsored by the National Religious Broadcasters in the US. He found himself in a room of Christian celebrities. With sweaty palms and heart racing, feeling completely out of place, he skipped the small talk and went straight over to his seat. 

To make things worse, he found out he was seated next to Chuck Swindoll. He said, “Picture how intimidating it would be to sit next to one of your heroes in a room full of ‘spiritual giants’ and you are the new kid on the block.” But after a few minutes, Ingram took a huge risk. He turned to Swindoll, introduced himself and confessed, “I’m real new to all of this. I’m really out of my league here, I don’t know what I’m doing and this is a very threatening environment. Do you think you could give me a few tips on how to handle myself and what to do?” Swindoll shocked him by admitting he felt the same way. In fact, he pointed out that most people in the room felt insecure as well. He took Ingram under his wing, and thirty years later, they’re still friends.

My natural tendency is not to open up about my insecurity, but hide it with an image of calm, unshakeable confidence. While I can demonstrate vulnerability, I curate my public admissions carefully while opening my indecision and doubts to very few, trusted confidants. It’s helpful to me to realize I have solidarity in my insecurity, which helps me see past the masks of others I am prone to compare myself with. In fact, I think insecurity is one of the most common weaknesses in leaders, and it’s likely the source of a lot of wounds leaders have inflicted on others.

Ingram points out that the way to defuse insecurity is by admitting it and refusing to play the game. He says the key is authenticity. The Bible is full of examples where God calls insecure people to leadership. One of my favorites is Gideon, who was completely open with God, revealing that he saw himself as the weakest link in a weak clan (Judges 6:14-16, my version). God then teaches him through a series of tests, and then a miraculous victory. His vulnerability made his example far more relevant to all of us millennia later. I’ll discuss some of other Biblical examples in my next post.

God can redeem that insecurity when we put down our fig leaves before God and others. Then do the deep soul work of understanding our security as children of God who are loved and accepted just as we are. And finally, step out in faith to follow God’s call with your meager offerings.

Ridiculously in Charge

Dr. Henry Cloud unpacks this idea in his book, Margins for Leaders, but you can find a shorter synopsis of this particular point here: Are You Ridiculously in Charge as a Leader?

In spite of all the flaws, the leader is “ridiculously in charge,” as Henry Cloud puts it. There are no excuses or blame shifting for the leader of an organization, company or church—nor for leaders at all levels. Everything in your arena of responsibility, no matter its size, happens either because you caused it or because you allowed it to happen. 

If you want a certain culture, you can create it while not tolerating undesirable actions or attitudes. If you want certain results, you can build a competent team of staff to accomplish it while holding everyone accountable to make sure it’s not undermined. 

As Moses learned from his father-in-law in Exodus 18, the larger the arena of responsibility, the more shared leadership is required. This increases complexity and requires techniques for delegating responsibilities and knowing what’s going on under your leadership. But it doesn’t change the fact that a leader owns everything: a team success, a failed initiative or a staff member acting alone. 

One way to take this phrase is that he or she is “totally” in charge. But Cloud’s memorable phrasing reminds me that, however I might feel about the absurdity of my appointment to the position and my suitability and qualification for the job, I need to own the fact God has placed me here. 

WIDIRIC

This acronym is a constant reminder that, like any humans in roles of high responsibility, I am inadequate for the task in myself. Like all humans, I have to overcome my fears and fight the instincts to cover up my insecurities with unhealthy behaviors. And it’s a call to courageously step up and take the responsibility of leadership seriously (Rom 12:8 NLT). God is still calling people to ministry and leadership who feel unqualified, but are willing to give it their best shot and learn from their mistakes. God’s promise to Moses and Gideon was the same as it is for us: “I will be with you” (Exodus 3:12, Judges 6:16, Matthew 28:20). The best leaders learn how to depend on the Holy Spirit and the power of God to work in them and through them. 

It comes down to this: all of us have fears and failures to overcome. The gospel is the only real credential any of us has for ministry. It’s who God is, not who we are, that is the difference-maker.

Follow up blog posts:

Celebrating a one-of-a-kind

Posted on by
Reply

I sometimes wonder if people suspect I married Becky just so I could gain her parents in the deal. They are one of the best gifts she ever gave me. My second father, Bill MacNabb, passed away last week, and I’ve struggled to articulate an appropriate tribute for him. I’m going to do it as a leadership tribute.

I think what most impressed me was Bill’s faith and humor through a life of storms that would have shaken anyone. He had a one-of-a-kind disease. For over thirty years his doctors tried on diagnosis after diagnosis, sometimes naming diseases that were usually found in women or only diagnosed at autopsy. One doctor ended up calling it “MacNabb’s Disease.” Turns out all the symptoms can be tied to Agent Orange exposure in the Vietnam War. He gave his life in service to his country. If his life had ended back then, however, he wouldn’t have enriched as many lives as he did.

While he grew up without a model for fatherhood, he became the loving, doting father to his girls that he never had himself. He put a lot of energy into creating games for them and forging a lifetime of deep memories. He made sure they knew they were loved. When his daughters each found their life partners, he adopted them as one of his own kids, once they attempted the impossible feat he designed as a test.

No one needed to follow Bill. He was a titled leader—a president, chairman of the board, an elder, and a patriarch of a growing clan—but he didn’t require a title to lead. He had the courage to forge a path when there wasn’t one blazed before. He was willing to do what he wanted to do even if no one followed. Yet I think you’ll see that many followed him.

Finding the humor

Most will remember my father-in-law for his humor, in spite of all his hardships. He joked even if no one got it, because he wanted to make himself laugh. He often cracked himself up, and even if those around him didn’t get it, his laughter was contagious.

When painting became an outlet during a season of brain-diseased-episodes, he created art that only a mother would love. Or only the artist could appreciate. His best friend told him, “Bill, you’re an artist in your own mind.” Bill compounded the joke by scribbling overpriced valuations on the back of his most ridiculous paintings. One Father’s Day years later, when he was in his right mind, we pulled out his art collection from the attic. He hadn’t seen many of these pieces in a long time, and as he saw them he began to laugh. Ugly laughing—tears streaming down his cheeks and his face frozen in a grimace as he struggled to breathe.

He was often willing to offer himself as the butt of his own jokes, like his tongue-in-cheek alter ego, “Mr. Fix It”—a willing hero who was always depicted applying the wrong tool for the job. He was equally willing to roast his brothers-in-law or send them a two-page invoice after their family enjoyed his hospitality. Or to sacrifice his sons-in-law for comedic purposes. As his first daughter was about to marry me, he said at the rehearsal dinner, “I don’t think of this as gaining a son. I think of it as losing my shirt.”

He was also an author in search of an audience. He wrote because he had to, even if few would ever read his work. His written correspondence with his father-in-law is epic, even if written for only one person. As a former journalist, he wanted to publish, and he achieved that goal in 2019 with a book of extremely limited run. It seems perfect that there’s only one copy of his book available on Amazon right now, and there seems to be a bit of price gouging in play. Perhaps they think the author’s death is going to drive up demand in the resale market. Bill would be the first to find the humor in that.

First followers

It’s easy to say a one-of-a-kind doesn’t need others, but that’s actually untrue. The first to follow someone are the ones who define that person as a leader. As John Maxwell once said, a leader with no followers is just taking a walk. Bill MacNabb could have just taken a walk out of step with everyone else, but something about him drew others to participate in his jokes, his writing and his artwork. He had a huge influence on all who knew him, and we wanted to walk at his pace. So let’s talk about his followers for a minute.

One way we participated was to provide an audience. We listened to Bill’s drafts or helped others realize when he was joking. He fed off the reactions to his dry wit or sarcasm. In one case, he concluded a eulogy for his best friend and walked away silently before returning to the microphone to say, “I usually get applause.” I can still see the funeral director shaking his head at the raucous response. Bill loved it when a message intended for one audience was unearthed. Such as a spoof video he created as sales manager for a heating and cooling company, when he explained how profit was lagging sales, and told customers, “If we had known you would have money left over at the end of the year, we wouldn’t have given you the prices we did.”

The audience also has a role to play. The greatest gift those around Bill could give him was to help him lift his jokes, his writing, his artwork to a level of absurdity. For instance, his kids created a local news video to showcase his journalistic ramblings after a tree exploded behind his house: “A tree explodes! News at 11!” Others created inspirational placemats featuring his Mr Fix It photo series. He knew he was loved when others laughed with him.

We further participate by preserving and celebrating Bill’s writings, artwork, jokes and stories. This week, his first followers have been mining his archives so we can share some of the best at the memorial service tomorrow.

Harnessing limitations

One of the things I’ll remember most about my father-in-law was the way his health-related limitations focused him. Rather than becoming a barrier, they helped him reprioritize. 

He proved able to change and grow, moving away from his workaholism of the years before I knew him to putting his people first throughout his presidency. Frankly, his limitations made him a great president and chairman. Bill was a humble servant leader who loved his company and every employee. He was also capable and competent, leading with wisdom and foresight. Most of his staff had no idea how often he used the couch in his office. If they only knew that his meetings and sales calls were often preceded by a daily ritual of reciting Psalms out loud on his commute so he would sound articulate by the time he walked in the doors. 

Retiring early upon his doctor’s advice gave him more time to focus on people. Bill was incredibly generous, participated in church stewardship campaigns, led the church’s Rock & Roll Evangelism Committee and spent time with his many grandkids—whether they were biological or lived on the street. He also got to know his neighbors during his frequent walks, sometimes taking breaks in front of their homes or dodging a thunder storm in their carports. He then included many of their stories in his second, self-published book. He and my mother-in-law helped build a remarkable community in their neighorhood: this week, there have been as many tears shed up and down his street as among his family.

To the very end, Bill never lost his sense of humor, and joked even when he could no longer speak. Even if he was in pain and visibly struggling with basic activities, if someone asked him how he was doing, his standard ironic response was, “Never had a bad day in my life.” His book title summarizes the reality. His life was lived boldly, with buckets of tears and pails of laughter.

Fashion the right people from the team you have now

Posted on by
1

We’re continuing the idea that the wrong people can become the right people within the right culture, so take a look back at my previous post for the introduction. Now I want to ideate around the how.

With passion and a bit of conviction, I started drafting this blog post, but I’ve wrestled with it for at least five years. My first question was whether these ideas could actually work. I haven’t been entirely successful with my efforts, but I have seen each of these methods work in at least one person or team I’ve led, so I’ll share from personal experience where possible. My second question was how to talk about these situations while still honoring the people I have worked with. I trust I’ve walked that wire appropriately. 

This post is a bit long, but I want to unpack some practical ways you can use to put this idea into practice.

1. Change the context, change the person

In Topgrading, Brad Smart offers a warning about recruiting a high performer from another company, because you’re extracting her from the team and context that made her successful. So doesn’t it stand to reason that some people might be viewed negatively or perform poorly because of the team, systems and environment they’re in? Change the circumstances, and you may get a very different result. Why couldn’t you build a winning team by intentionally developing a new context around some high-potential but underperforming team members? 

A number of years ago I took over a sales team like that. I could see their potential, and their frustration and discouragement. I was convinced that, with a bit of work to advocate for their concerns, introduce servant leadership, and get them supporting each other, they were capable of delivering fantastic results. I didn’t know their core business, so there was no danger of me telling them how to do their jobs. I simply changed their environment. I worked for them, and morale and teamwork improved dramatically. They had a record-setting year.

2. Trace systemic causes

As I’ve described in this blog before, I have my own experience with working in a challenging environment… and contributing to that environment. I don’t point fingers, because I became a poor follower and poor performer. But that experience didn’t prevent a senior leader from taking a risk on me. He saw enough to invite me to work for him. His example has shaped how I view staff. Ever since, I’ve kept an eye out for opportunities to pay it forward. 

Sometimes when I hear of an internal staff member whose career path is floundering after a poor annual review, I will still consider him for a transfer into an open role. There are pretty good cost reasons to retain existing staff rather than start fresh. Here’s what I look for:

  • I try to read between the lines to see potential, as this senior leader did with me. 
  • I look into the circumstances—reading subtext in the annual review or finding oblique ways to explore the candidate’s team—and try to determine what other factors might be at play. 
  • I look to see whether his resume shows examples of past success and what might have contributed to those successes.
  • I consider whether the good or bad results were in part a product of the team he was in, or the style of supervision, or his working environment. 

If the setting I can offer resembles the ones where he has thrived, can I accept the risks of it not working out? 

3. Look for aptitude and attitude

Someone who has gone through a difficult experience will obviously show grief, sadness and anger over the experience. Negative attitudes themselves are not necessarily a deal-killer, because the person may have reason for that negativity. Perhaps she has been silenced, or overlooked, or passed over, or had too many supervisor handoffs. Unless that negativity has metastasized into bitterness, she may be able to turn things around. 

The primary criterion is this: has this person owned her part in her failure and made it a learning opportunity? Indicators of ownership include a commitment to reflection, acceptance of blame and expressions of regret over personal actions. You should also look for signs of hope. In Creativity, Inc., Ed Catmull suggests a couple of indicators that a person can make the shift. With one influential staff member at Disney Animation, he looked for “intellectual curiosity and a willingness to remake [her unit] in a different image,” along with an ability to think in new ways about her job (p160). It took time, but she was able to turn the corner.

With evidence of indicators like those, I occasionally take a risk on someone that others have written off.

4. Signal a change

Culture is notoriously difficult to change. But sometimes it only takes a small catalyst to make a dramatic change. It’s like the characteristics of yeast; the Apostle Paul pointed out that a little affects the whole lump of dough (1 Cor 5:6, Gal 5:9). 

I heard a recent example about an employee-owned airline, with an incredible culture, that merged with another airline. They inadvertently introduced some cynical yeast. The new employees began openly questioning the motivations of the company’s leaders, and it soon infected everyone. Loud whisperers, those who tend toward suspicion, or those who repeat every negative thought can bring the team down. 

Let me also add prima donnas who deliver results but poison the culture by failing to see their success as a team effort and demanding exceptional treatment. I once heard Dave Ramsey share how he told his best salesman, “The next time you’re late to work, bring a box.” When the puzzled man asked why, he responded, “So you can pack up your desk.”

The good news is that it doesn’t take much to send a powerful signal to the rest of the team. I’ve seen the extra spring in a staff member’s step when I released a longtime staff member from the team—someone who had been a thorn in her side, who seemed to get away with bad behavior. This reckoning signaled a change. The fact is that if you keep someone who is flaunting the rules, you’re likely to lose someone you want to keep. 

5. Plant a catalyst

If one or two wrong people can ruin a team, could it work the other way? Bring in one or two staff who exemplify the desired values to try to influence the entire team. However, it would be easy to lose new staff to the dominant culture, so this path only works if you protect them. I’ve seen this happen with young leaders, when the president backed them and provided a direct line to bring him their frustrations. Your backing should be consistent, but it may also need to be conspicuous; you may need to offer both carrots and sticks to those who would hammer down the nail that stands up.

Remember that some leaders are less visible, influencing from the back. So either a positive catalyst or a bad apple might not be the most obvious, up-front staff. It might be far more effective to drive change obliquely through a back-row leader.

And here’s a radical thought: What if you could win over your biggest existing critic? When Catmull and Lasseter went to Disney Animation, they identified a few surprising catalysts within the existing team: an HR director “steeped in the old ways of doing things” (p160), the head of a competitive division set up to leverage Pixar’s intellectual property (p160) and two people who had been let go by the previous leader (p167). All four already had influence, and when they started supporting the new direction, there was instant credibility.

How many staff would it take to create a tipping point for change? McKinsey & Company says it can take as few as seven percent of a team to drive a change. I would posit that a few of the right people can hit above their weight in moving the rest of the team.

6. Create pairings

Like a wine or coffee, where the notes are drawn out by the right food pairing, people can draw out the best or worst in each other. It’s about matching. Catmull says, “Even the smartest people can form an ineffective team if they are mismatched. That means it is better to focus on how a team is performing, not on the talents of the individuals within it.” (p 53)

Don’t think melody, but harmony. Cultivate diversity of viewpoints, because the wider the range of skills, experience, perspective, the more effective the blend can be. Then balance tensions, not letting one viewpoint win out, but highlighting and managing differences and strong opinions. 

How do you find the pairings? Watch for unexpected symbiosis between individuals, or better results when certain people work together. You can also get to know your people and learn their strengths, weaknesses and biases. Where a weakness is identified, how can someone else’s strength, or a combination of strengths, compensate? If you don’t have that strength in your team, it might provide a focus for your next catalytic and strategic hire.

Conclusion

So did it work for Ed Catmull? Shortly after he brought in his values and systems and made a few strategic staffing decisions, the Disney Animation team began an improved trajectory that led to two #1 films: ”Tangled” (2010) and “Frozen” (2013). Rather than replace the existing staff to accomplish this success, Catmull proudly says the studio ‘was still populated by most of the same people John [Lasseter] and I had encountered when we arrived'” (p170).

People are not pawns to be moved around or downgraded. Do we believe in people? Do we love people enough to try to draw out their best and have patience with them as they adjust? Do we use failure as an opportunity for learning? And when people are not performing, do we try to change their setting to give them every chance of success before assuming we should let them go?

Let’s make this a conversation. Do you agree or disagree with this line of thinking? Leaders, what has worked or not worked for you as you shift an existing team?

Unexpected preparation

Posted on by
3

I’ve been studying how God provides for his mission—sometimes surprising the recipient and the provider of that resource. There are few more surprising examples than one that Jesus comments on when trying to make a point to the Jewish leaders of his day:

There were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon (Luke 4:25-26).

As I studied the story he’s referring to, in 1 Kings 17, I had to set aside my Sunday School understanding of the story. Reading it through a traditional Western lens wasn’t much better, so I intentionally sought other perspectives—especially sources in Africa and Asia, as you can see in my reference list. Many are not from my denominational segment, and I admit I’m not entirely comfortable with all that these authors write. But their perspective helped challenge my assumptions and fill in what I might be missing from my cultural lens.

Let me start with a leadership principle: Leaders sometimes fail to think of those who live downstream from their decisions or actions. 1 Kings 17 is set in a larger context, as the end of chapter 16 begins to explain. Queen Jezebel and King Ahab are leading the people of Israel to worship a god from the nearby land of Sidon, the god of rain and harvest: Baal. God’s intent to expose Baal’s actual powerlessness leads to a political and religious battle between representatives of God and Baal. But rather than focusing on those in power, this passage zooms in on the story of two people caught downstream from that battle: Elijah, the unwitting victim of his own action, and a widow and mother caught in the crossfire. So the story selection itself lifts up the weak and marginalized, which was part of Jesus’ point as well.

If you are familiar with the prophet Elijah, you likely picture characteristics like moodiness, fears, inspiring faith, living in the moment, and a sense of theatre. But all the character development in this story takes place along the way; he gets no introduction. So I want to encourage you to look at the chapter with fresh eyes. The reason we know Elijah is a prophet is because of his name and his first words. For a Jewish reader, the story starts this way:

Now Yahweh-is-God… said to Ahab, “As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.” 

Yes, Elijah’s name gives away his purpose. God intends to show that he is above all other gods by attacking the source of Baal’s power and identity; he will withhold rain. 

Immediately after this proclamation, God tells his man to run and hide, and then offers a series of provisions to get him through the next 42 months. God has an intentional season of preparation in mind. First, he offers the prophet a hiding spot by a brook (v5) in the same watershed as Israel. There Elijah discovers a ready supply of food that Jews were expressly forbidden to eat. For a Jew, the food itself and the means of delivery matter. Of all birds, a raven will make him unclean1 (Lev. 11:15), and the food any scavenger delivers would have unknown origins or preparation methods. So the first thing to consider: What did it take for a kosher Israelite to receive food from a scavenger?

For that matter, why would the God who gave the Law intentionally ask Elijah to defy the Law? He does the same with the apostle Peter in Acts 10, and that gives us a clue: God prepares both men ahead of time for ministering in a foreign environment. They could never engage cross-culturally if they were sticklers who couldn’t even set foot in a Gentile house or eat their food.2 

There’s another lesson for Elijah during this period. He can’t look too far ahead, because relying on a brook during a drought is a losing proposition. He has put all of his trust in God, and God seems to have only anticipated some months of provision.3 Elijah watches the water level drop day by day, not knowing how God will meet his needs in the future. 

Having learned the life of a fugitive and daily dependence on God4, Elijah is now ready for the mission God is sending him on. That’s right: God’s goal isn’t just to meet Elijah’s needs while he waits for Jezebel and Ahab to soften; God intends to use him as a cross-cultural missionary, to meet the needs of someone else hurt by the drought and famine.

Only after the brook dries up does God reveal phase 2 of his plan. God’s solution for his prophet’s needs means sending Elijah:

  • Over 75 miles away, on the opposite fringe of Ahab’s kingdom, a journey either through the land where there’s a warrant out on him, or the long way around it. Either one fraught with danger.
  • Into the heart of Baal-worshiping Sidon, the land ruled by Jezebel’s father (16:31, 17:9). This location was no less safe for Elijah than staying in Israel.
  • To a widow preparing her last meal before giving up.

Can you feel the objections and questions rising in Elijah? Before experiencing and receiving God’s provision, he has to overcome his own mental blocks. 

Have you ever gone through a season that in retrospect, seems designed to break your previous patterns of understanding? God can use failure to do that. Or a cross-cultural clash. Or a crisis. It’s painful in the moment, but God’s plan for your next phase wouldn’t be possible without it. For Elijah, it’s going to get even more challenging.

References (intentionally seeking non-Western views)
1. Ruolngul, James R. (India) “The Wisdom of God in His Providence.” Independent Church of India. 11 November 2022. https://www.ici.net.in/the-wisdom-of-god-in-his-providence/
2. Compare the centurions in Mathew 8:8 and Acts 10:24-26, for example.
3. Seifert, Marlon. (Brazil) “Elijah and The Widow.” Sermon. 2 Oct 2025. https://prmarlon.com/blog-2/elijah-and-the-widow
4. van der Walt, J.S. (South Africa) “The recipient becoming a participant and the participant becoming a recipient: A strange encounter in 1 Kings 17 with a not so strange outcome.” Acta Theologica, University of the Free State. 10 December 2021. https://scielo.org.za/pdf/at/v41s32/13.pdf. 
Quoting Wyatt, Stephanie. (South Africa) “Jezebel, Elijah, and the Widow of Zarephath: A Ménage à Trois that Estranges the Holy and Makes the Holy the Strange.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. SAGE Publications. 15 May 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089212438020

Elijah series:

Countercultural Integrity

Posted on by
Reply

New Years is the point in the year when recency bias culminates. Journalists love to reflect back on the year, and top-10 and top-100 lists proliferate. It’s easy to fall into this fallacy that puts too much stock in recent experiences or current-day successes over historical comparisons. Any conversation about the “Greatest of All Time” is likely going to give too much consideration to modern-day athletes, actors and statesmen as we forget some of the amazing feats of early-day practitioners, especially when evaluated against their context and antagonists.

So it’s quite remarkable to weigh these words from God in Ezekiel 14:13-14:

…if a country sins against me by being unfaithful and I stretch out my hand against it… even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord.

That’s an interesting grouping of Bible characters that’s easy to gloss over when read 2,600 years after it was written. In Ezekiel’s day, Noah and Job would have been legendary. But Daniel was still alive at the time this passage was written—likely in the time between Daniel 2 and 4. A lot of what we know about this young man hadn’t taken place yet.

I’m trying to think of a parallel. It’s not on the same level as comparing LeBron James to Wilt Chamberlain, or a current-day activist reformer to Mahatma Gandhi. It’s an entirely different scale, like rounding out the following groupings with someone who is alive today:

  • Plato, Aristotle and _______
  • Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and _______

How would you even begin to put someone else in that elite company?

It would be much less dangerous to include a third historical figure, where the record is largely complete. Were there no other ancient figures to list among those two legends? Perhaps Abraham, who asked God for mercy, interceding on behalf of two cities that were known for wickedness (Gen 18:22-23)? Caleb, who wholeheartedly followed the Lord in contrast with many of his contemporaries (Num 14:24)? Kings Hezekiah or Josiah, who were both described as exceptional followers of the Lord, who wholeheartedly turned to Him and and unceasingly obeyed (2 Kings 18:5-6, 23:25)?

What trait is celebrated by grouping these three? Personal righteousness, specifically a righteousness that stands against pressure to conform. Let’s call it courageous righteousness and countercultural integrity. The thing about righteousness is that, until the record is closed, it can be gone in an instant. Declaring that a contemporary figure is righteous comes with considerable risk. Ask any company who has had to disentangle themselves from a celebrity endorsement contract. And we can certainly point to many recent church leaders who were exemplary until their secrets were unearthed.

What does the record say about these three figures?

Noah

Noah is a mythic figure, the subject of legends and known to everyone as the man who saved civilization in the world’s only true historical global catastrophe. Before he began building the ark, Genesis 6:9 introduces him as a righteous man, blameless in his generation—in contrast with a perverse culture described in verses 1-7. The apostle Peter later says not only that God preserved him because of his personal righteousness, but that he was a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet 2:5). And Hebrews 11:7 says he inherited righteousness through his faith and in building the ark, he condemned the world.

Job

This ancient figure was commended by God for being blameless, fearing God and turning away from evil—like no one else on earth (Job 1:8 and 2:3). He searched for sin in his own heart and his civic and business activities (ch 31), and held onto his integrity even against his wife’s advice (2:9). He made sacrifices on behalf of his adult children in case any had sinned (1:5) and interceded for his friends. After chapters of false accusations against him, God himself endorsed Job for speaking rightly about God; his prayers alone were acceptable to God (42:7-9). Job is a model of someone who was “purified… in the furnace of affliction” (Isaiah 48:10).

Daniel

This Jewish captive—who would go on to serve as an advisor for decades to a succession of powerful pagan kings, and gain a reputation by preaching righteousness to King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:27), praying in spite of religious laws, and for surviving a death sentence in a lion’s den (ch 6)—had done very little when his name was dropped in Ezekiel 14.

As of this writing, this young captive had paired his looks and his brain with the courage of his convictions, refusing to defile himself in spite of high stakes (ch 1). He was then noticed by the Babylonian king as a standout wise man in whom was the spirit of the gods and the ability to communicate with the “revealer of mysteries” (ch 2). Ezekiel’s prophecy is evidence that, even early in Daniel’s career, his reputation had spread to the exiles—like Ezekiel. It likely soared after such a strong endorsement from God himself!

Most of us are too jaded after a series of scandals to count on any modern day figure seeing their integrity survive their lives intact. Of course, God alone knows that Daniel will burnish that early reputation even further, and is not in danger of failing.

What’s my point?

Who could stand today in that righteousness hall of fame? Like Noah, does your integrity stand out against the backdrop of our culture? Like Job and Daniel, can your righteousness stand against pressures to conform?

How many of our contemporaries have started out strong, developed a reputation for integrity and courage, only to fail before the end? It’s a reminder that leaders need constant vigilance against entitlement and compromise. Maintaining our character is hard work. 

As Bobby Clinton says in his Leadership Emergence Theory, very few attain the status he calls “Afterglow”—“the fruit of a lifetime of ministry and growth [that] culminates in an era of recognition and indirect influence,” a time in which “Others will seek them out because of their consistent record in following God” (The Making of a Leader, p47). As a leader, I long to get to that point, with few regrets and a consistency worth celebrating.

Fellow leaders, what disciplines are you putting in place to ensure that when you step down from leadership you will maintain the good name you’ve spent a lifetime building? As new years begin, we love inventories, reflection and examens (If you’re unfamiliar, here’s an example), and the one in Job 31 is a great starting place—covering a breadth of areas like sexual sin, deceit, greed, injustice, stinginess, jealousy and people pleasing.

Good enough

Posted on by
Reply

When you need to make a decision, what percent of information would you say you need to move ahead? Is it closer to 100% or 60%? Err one way, and you fall into the ditch of analysis paralysis. The other side of the road can spill you into rash action. 

In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell argues that in many situations, people know instantaneously what they need to do, and the problem with waiting is that you can talk yourself out of the right answer. That was my experience in every high school exam. If I knew the answer, great. If I had an inkling but wasn’t sure, I’d then try to logic out the answer, and I’d choose a different answer than my immediate sense. Gladwell suggests you may have enough information in a split second to know what to do, and time could be your enemy. 

In The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership, Dr. Steven Sample goes the other way. He urges leaders to ask, “How much time do I have?” If you have another week to make a decision, some additional information might come to light that would lead to a better decision. Of course, if the decision is needed today, you have to make the best decision you can with whatever information is available now, knowing that to not make a decision is a decision. The reality is that some problems resolve themselves, or solutions emerge as other leaders step up. In other words, the more lead time, the better your decision success rate should be. Think of it as strategic procrastination: put off until tomorrow what doesn’t have to be decided today. When time is up, whatever knowledge you have is “good enough.” 

There are ditches on both sides of the road.

Back to my original question: For you, what percentage of the information you wish you had is sufficient to make a decision? It’s a question of risk tolerance. If it helps, ask it this way, “Compared to others, for a particular type of decision, am I more or less risk averse?” 

For me, I can certainly be decisive, but when asked to make a decision, I find it helpful to dig deeper. The amount of information needed depends on the scope, gravity and reversibility of the decision. Most leadership decisions are not life and death, but some have far-reaching implications. Here are some of my approaches:

  1. Filtering. The amount of information available to us is unprecedented, so it’s obviously not the quantity of information we need. One of Gladwell’s solutions is the idea of filtering the factors that matter, so it’s less about how much information than what types of information to pay attention to. I remember a very helpful acronym from my university calculus classes: TBU. Some information is True But Useless. 
  1. Breaking it down. Many decisions are actually a series of decisions, and you proceed to the next stage if the answer is “not no.” In these cases, you have time to see how the first “yes” develops before proceeding or adjusting course. 
  1. Prototyping. I have seen that many decisions allow for a ready-aim-fire, aim-and-fire again approach. In my work with innovators, I’ve learned the value of a minimal viable product (MVP) to start moving, and to test and learn from earlier attempts while working on a more effective version 2.0.
  1. Holding. I tend toward Sample’s advice, determining what kind of decision is needed and how long I need. In his dissertation on “Leading with Limited Knowledge,” Rob Hay describes “holding” as carrying, pondering, and wrestling with an issue, turning it around in your hand to consider its many facets. In the middle of a situation—when thinking, praying, reflecting and discerning are most critical—time and space are costly. But those are key parts of a leader’s job description. 
  1. Testing. For significant decisions, I often utilize Ruth Haley Barton’s spiritual discernment process laid out in Pursuing God’s Will Together. There are a lot of great practices there, but let me highlight one. Barton recommends deciding in your mind one way and letting it sit for a while before doing the same with the other choice. The implications of the decision emerge in ways you might not have noticed if you stayed in neutral.

In Acts 15, the early Church demonstrated a form of discernment in the way they approached a critical decision. The question they faced touched on deep-seated biases and had very significant implications that could tear the Church apart: Should the Church remain exclusive to Jews, or should it expand to include Gentiles? After hearing the facts and listening to debate, James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, held up their arguments against his own study of Scripture and then made a judgment call. Three times after that, the Church carried out implementation steps that “seemed good”—to various parties, “to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:22, 25, 28). 

There’s a humility in those words. Even when it’s an earth-shaking decision that will decide the future of the Church, the best James and the elders could do was conclude that it seemed good.  It’s an acknowledgement that our best efforts to hear the arguments and logic out the implications are limited and flawed, because we are human. Even if God clearly speaks, we can get it wrong because of our interpretations or the lens we use. The most we can do is conclude that it seems right, and accept that God has given those who lead in this moment the responsibility to make the decision.

We will never get it right 100% of the time, but we have to move forward.

I’ve taken to calling my approach “good enough.” I talk about it in terms of 90%—an arbitrary number that simply represents imperfection. 

  • If I can get 90% of the information that’s available at the point the decision is required, move ahead. 
  • If I can get most of the value out of a 90% MVP approach, move ahead.1
  • If I can get 90% in the room in favor of a direction, move ahead.2
  • And if I’m 90% sure that God is pointing in a certain direction, test that decision, sit with it, share it humbly, and then move ahead. 

Rob Hay promotes the idea of “tentative certainty.” Rather than try to make the whole decision, tentative certainty means being certain enough, with the amount of knowledge available, to take the next step. As you begin to act, pay attention in order to respond to the unexpected and be able to change direction.

  1. That extra 10% will likely take a lot more resources without adding much value anyway. ↩︎
  2. In most cases, people need to know their voice was heard, but consensus isn’t required. ↩︎

Moving from the front row

Posted on by
Reply

Let me address a question my readers may have been wondering. Where did I go for the past few years? Why haven’t I been posting anything? There are a few factors.

First, I had more opportunity to think about leadership before I got busy leading. The business of leading takes a lot of focus and energy, and that was the case in my role as president of an organization and my current role, helping turn a startup initiative into a standup. The stats for this blog bear that out, from the early days of posting 5-6 times a month during my years of leadership development to struggling to even post once a month while serving as president.

Second, I had a lot more to say about leadership principles when it was theoretical. I had certainly led before, at lower levels. A lot of my thoughts were inspired by books and the concepts resonated in my personal experience. I stand by most of my observations, and I believe this blog collectively portrays my leadership style. But now I place less certitude in my own leadership observations.

But this doesn’t explain why my posts have all but dried up in the past two years. I haven’t given up on this blog. In theory, I should have even more content to offer.

Third, I have doubts about the broad relevance of my leadership experience. Leadership is contextual. Some authors are prolific in turning their leadership experience into formulas. I don’t think I’ve figured out how to package up my leadership experiences yet. I’ll keep reflecting and attempting to do that here, but it may take some time.

There has been an irony in a front row leader maintaining a blog called “The Back Row Leader.” Perhaps I’m better equipped to post my thoughts here when I’m not in the front row. The value I can offer other leaders out of the wisdom of experience should exceed my early, prolific years. So I plan to ramp up again over the next few months.

I will be adding a new channel to this blog that I believe might breathe new life into The Back Row Leader. While leadership will still be a focus for this blog, I plan to start “thinking out loud” about missiology and other topics to help leaders engage with our world. I’ll start by digging back into content I released in other platforms to refresh and release here. Stay tuned!

Leadership as bull riding

Posted on by
5

There are a lot of analogies for leadership that each have strengths to capture various facets. In this blog, I’ve used metaphors such as gardening, shepherding and art directing. I’ve been fascinated by others’ analogies of a symphony orchestra or a peloton of cyclists. Here I want to unpack a new metaphor that’s captured my interest.

Though I live in Calgary, home of “The Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth,” I am an uncomfortable Calgarian when it comes to our city’s celebrated Stampede week. Fairly frequently, I’ve found a reason to be out of town that week. So consider these the observations of a poorly-informed city slicker on the remarkable sport of bull riding.

I’m betting that most of my readers don’t know any more about rodeo than I do, so let’s establish a baseline understanding:

  • The rider mounts the bull in a chute, with railings preventing the beast from fighting back against this irritant climbing onto its back.
  • There is no saddle, but the rider grips a handle connected to a rope around the bull’s chest. He cannot touch the bull with his other hand, but holds on with his knees.
  • The chute is then opened, and the clock begins. The goal is to stay on the bull and score as many points as possible against the most challenging ride possible over the next eight seconds.

Recognizing the deficiency in my knowledge, I find the bull riding analogy is fairly apt for organizational leadership. A 2,000 pound bull is much more powerful than the rider, and it prefers to be left alone. It is big enough to go where it wants to go, and there’s little that can be done to stop it or steer it.

A rider will never actually be in control, but does have some control over his experience and the bull’s behavior. He gains points for style and personality—things like maintaining poise, with his hat on and one hand waving the air, driving his spurs rhythmically into the bull’s side.

A bull reacts to a disruption to its status quo by making unpredictable leaps, spins, kicks and jerks, trying desperately to be free of the rider. My observation is that a high-level bull rider draws on a wealth of experience that allows him to keep his balance and even prompt certain reactions. Experience leads him to anticipate movement and lean into what’s coming next.

The point isn’t to merely stay on the bull for eight seconds; to score lots of points, the bull rider must gain style points while having a challenging ride. Few points are scored if the bull is weak or moves predictably, or if the rider loses the ability to follow his game plan and simply reacts. Bull riders will celebrate when they draw the biggest bull with the reputation for throwing its riders, because it’s an opportunity to prove themselves against the best opposition.

All of this to say that a successful ride takes place when the bull’s agenda is met by the rider’s agenda, and the illusion is created that a wild force has been mastered. The bull rider appears to have steered the bull when in reality, he may have merely managed to not fall off.

Likewise, an organization is a big, strong system that offers some indicators of how it will behave, but cannot be controlled. It automatically reacts against a change agent who tries to steer it. The leader tries to stay atop the organization, drawing on a grid of previous experience to try to anticipate, absorb and even steer the organization’s movement. And success for a leader is a bit of an illusion. Those we think of as the greatest leaders proved themselves against seemingly-insurmountable challenges and every attempt from the system to throw them off—leaders like Lincoln and Churchill.

What parallels do you see to organizational culture and the illusions of leadership? What lessons do you draw from this analogy?

Leadership as bull riding series: